Gohmert: Anyway, people in a district have a right to be represented by a person who actually represents what those people believe in. Not just somebody that a moderate leader feels he would be more comfortable with in Congress. So we want to help anybody who will stand on the founding principles, stand for what the Constitution requires.

Steinberg: I noticed you have seven specific issues laid out on GOHConservative’s About page. I know you mention on the site that the list isn’t comprehensive, but you’ve got the seven bullet points there. Now the Daily Caller article mentions your primary focus is going to be supporting the fiscal conservatives, getting support to those types of candidates.

That would raise the question of … if you get a candidate who’s not a 100% ACU-rated conservative, is that still someone who should be looking to GOHConservative for support?

Gohmert: Somebody can be a 100% ACU conservative, and not actually stand up for the defense of the country against those who wish to take us out, so –

Steinberg: I don’t even think they have you up there at 100%.

Gohmert: (Laughs) But yes –

Steinberg: Let’s say, say Scott Walker — his financial, fiscal success is unparalleled, he certainly is not going to fly with conservatives on other issues. Is a Scott Walker someone who would garner support from the PAC?

Gohmert: Yes, I mean if a Scott Walker-type candidate would run for federal office, and it’s clear that this is a stand-up person who is going to stand for our principles, and not be sucked into just wanting to score a chairmanship of a certain committee, but will stand by the principles they ran on — yes, we will help.

Steinberg: You responded to some of the attacks on the Ted Cruzes of the party being problematic for the party’s chances. You responded that this is about the constituents — we’ve got to hold up our end of the bargain. These conservatives were voted in on these platforms, this is what they’re here for, to more honestly live out their mandate.

Gohmert: That’s what it is. Keeping the promises we made when we got elected. How hard is that?

We can’t be like the other party that makes promises only to get elected, then doesn’t care what happens after that. We have got to be about the truth. Some in the party say, gee, the truth, or what we promised, is maybe the right thing to do, but not politically the right thing. And I continue to maintain that the right thing will always ultimately be the politically right thing.

Maybe not initially, but in the long run, the right thing to do, honesty, truth, doing what we promised when we got elected — those things will win out in the end. They will be the politically right thing in the end.

It is frustrating. We took a pledge in 2010. I didn’t write it, but I read it, and I could support it, and I pledged to support all that was in there. And after we get elected, it seems to go right out the window. If we’re going to make a pledge, we ought to keep it.

Steinberg: I see a negative and a positive there. One is that party members are deliberately hiding their conservatism for strategic purposes. That seems to be the theme that you’re getting across here. In some cases, you are being told –

Gohmert: Well, they’re not intentionally hiding their conservatism for strategic purposes. The dynamic is more of .. they are here, they are conservative, their constituents are conservative. But the leadership preys upon their patriotism, preys upon the “team spirit” thing.

Instead of threatening, it’s more like … “Hey, we thought you were a team player. We didn’t know you were a big showboat that only cares about yourself. We had you pegged as a team player, so maybe help the team.”

And for people that are caring, sensitive people, that strikes a nerve. They think, you know, I am a team player, I am not out for myself, I want to do what’s best for the country. [Leadership responds with] well, what’s best for the country is you help our team. This may not be everything you want right now, but it lets us move on down the road.

I get so tired of hearing about “move on down the road.”

You kick the can on down the road, live to fight another day. Are you kidding me? How long are we gonna keep kicking the can down the road, living to fight another day? The answer is we keep that up, we’ll live to fight another day when we aren’t a free country.

I am no longer in the "go along to get along" camp. The so-called Republican "establishment" (a word that the Founders would have despised) is almost as bad as the Democrats. Worst of all, they repeatedly campaign on "smaller government" and "lower taxes" and never deliver anything except lies.

You lost half your audience right there Mr. Ghomert. It may or may not be be true depending on the person but what is your point? That non-Christians are not forgiving? And claiming to "stand up for principles" is also a dangerously encoded phrase. Which principles are you referring to . . the Christian ones or the libertarian ones? Once you are in power, do you intend to assert Christian principles in legislation? Which ones?

No, he didn't. I'm not a Christian, but I could understand the man's value system via the rest of his statements.

Gohmert's point was that Christians forgive people their former trespasses. He's saying "it's okay if you weren't very conservative yesterday, because what matters is how we approach it tomorrow."

You've completely ignored the context of his message so you could rush down to the comments to make your point.

You've got some good views, but you need to let others express their own views before rushing to lecture them.

The RNC deliberately let Democrat McAuliffe win the Virginia governorship last year when they refused to give Tea Party supported Republican Cuccinelli a dime while the DNC gave his opponent McAuliffe millions of out of state money for last minute attack ads. If Gohmert's PAC supports all conservative candidates, I'll support his PAC. For the RNC they'll get no more support from me, forever! I don't know who the RNC represents but they all are traitors to freedom, liberty, and Constitutional government.

Gohmert just can't shut up about truth, truth, truth, but he damn sure can't speak any. He has no more trouble creating and spreading bull^$@^ about others while jerking his Bible open to the Old Testament. He's an Old Testament kind of guy because it provides plenty of scripture to condemn somebody else with. He loves that stuff. However he can't seem to find anything comparable from the New Testament, because it preaches the principles of forgiveness, charity and humility rather than the stone them to death or throw them in a hole and let them starve solution that salves his sense of entitlement because he's better than everyone else.

I don't care much for Congressman Gohmert's brand of hurtful, denigrating, exclusionary, we'll tell you how to live, yea freedom politics.

Thanks, David and PJM for this interview with Rep. Gohmert and alerting us to GOHConservative.com. I agree with Louie 3000%. Sure wish he had taken on Cornyn. I'm going to trot on over to the website and send them a donation.

I have watched the civil war within Obama's opposition with distress. The goal should be unseating the Democrat turn toward populist anti-capitalism, not triumphalism for social conservatives, who already are protected under the First Amendment. I wrote about the endangerment to capitalism itself here: http://clarespark.com/2012/11/07/capitalism-is-on-the-line/. It analyzes the 2012 election in terms of the women's vote, which the Republican Party must capture to win, and not by keeping women barefoot and pregnant.

The only people saying Republicans want women barefoot and pregnant, are leftist operatives and the State-Run media.

It sure isn't anyone on the right. The mythical "War on Women" is nothing but a fabricated, false campaign issue, dreamed up by the Obama campaign to distract everyone from his abysmal economy, 92+ million Americans not working, ObamaGlitch and now his pathetically weak, aimless foreign policy (or the complete lack there of).

“We really don’t know what Congressman Gohmert is referring to. The conservative grassroots movement and the tea party brings energy, enthusiasm, and a commitment to defend liberty that is essential in building a Republican Senate majority." - NRSC Spokesperson

Is that why you've been doing everything possible to defeat and marginalize anything and everything Conservative or Tea Party since just after the 2010 mid-terms?

Is that why the NRSC declared war on the Senate Conservatives Fund and Conservatives like Mark Levin, because we're "essential in building a Republican Senate majority"?

I've seen this dynamic play out in Canada. Because there was also a clear regional split, the result was that the backstabbing and badmouthing from the "Progressive Conservative Party" (not making that up) led to the creation of a separate party. Its initial leader was a guy named Preston Manning, who knew (and still knows) more about the history and operation of populist Tea Party like movements than anyone else in North America.

The Reform Party was laughed at initially, and there were a couple of national elections won by the Liberals against a divided opposition. But Reform had a regional base that led to national election wins in their area of the country, and they entrenched themselves solidly as a regional bloc. Meanwhile, the PC Party found that it had little power, and struggled to win enough seats in more leftist areas of the country. The end result was the the PC party (yes, that was their official abbreviation) went bankrupt, and was taken over in a merger by the Reform Party.

Current moniker: Conservative Party of Canada. They've been the government since 2006, and a majority government since 2011.

The days of me donating to the GOP are long over. Since the Romney embarrassment of 2012 and the McCain embarrassment before that in 2008, I am no longer a Republican. I am registered as unaffiliated.

I contribute to, and support individual candidates that I like and that I know won't stab me in the back the first chance they get. I will no longer vote for anyone just because they have an (R) next to their name on the ballot.

Progressives, and "establishment" (whatever that is) Republicans that hate me, as a Conservative, will no longer get my money or my vote.

Please re-think your position. You can't vote in primaries if you aren't voting as a Republican. Don't make the mistake I did. I refused to register as Republican for years, because "they don't represent me". Then I realized, I was shutting myself out of the opportunity to change the Party from the inside.

You can be a Republican without losing your mind. More guys like us need to be more involved, not less involved.

JaycenR, I hear you. That was one aspect I struggled with before I changed my affiliation. When I was a registered (R) though, and I have been my entire voting life until November of 2012, I used to vote in all the primaries.

Unfortunately though, GOP primary rules are such that in some states, (D)'s can just change their affiliation to (R) to vote in and influence the primary, and then change it right back to (D). What this does, is essentially negate my and many other (R)'s votes. It nullifies our votes.

So, when the GOP nominates (D)-Lite Republicans for two straight Presidential elections (many more than that if you go back to Bush 1), I don't see how the GOP is even remotely capable of doing what they have to do to win, which is to nominate a Conservative. Do you?

That's a start. Boehnhead is definitely part of the problem, but so is McConnell, and Grahamnesty, and McCain and Priebus and many others.

There are many in the GOP "leadership" that have proven they're nothing but part of the problem. I hope they change directions, I really do.

It's really sad, because if the GOP had reached out to disillusioned Conservatives and Tea Party supporters, made strides to get us back and on board with the GOP, they could have all but crushed the DimocRats and we wouldn't have had a second term of Obamism.

But instead they chose to call us names, stab us in the back and declare war on us. Not a good way to get us back on board.

It really depends upon the state where you live whether you can vote in a Republican Primary. If you have to be a Republican to vote in the primary, it is best to remain a Republican so that you have a chance to nominate a conservative for the general election.

I am no longer in the "go along to get along" camp. The so-called Republican "establishment" (a word that the Founders would have despised) is almost as bad as the Democrats. Worst of all, they repeatedly campaign on "smaller government" and "lower taxes" and never deliver anything except lies.

You lost half your audience right there Mr. Ghomert. It may or may not be be true depending on the person but what is your point? That non-Christians are not forgiving? And claiming to "stand up for principles" is also a dangerously encoded phrase. Which principles are you referring to . . the Christian ones or the libertarian ones? Once you are in power, do you intend to assert Christian principles in legislation? Which ones?

You really want to change things GOP? Then you need a different voice. One that emphasizes the principles of personal freedom and responsibility, free markets and effective but limited government. This is not a personal attack on any religion (I was raised and remain Catholic), but the first realization that conservatives need to achieve is that a majority of Americans fear religion-based social restrictions far more than they fear government fraud, waste, special interest hi-jacking and mismanagement. The Democrats know this and can punch that ticket anytime they want to and anytime we give them an example to tout.

Remember Todd Akin? I sure do. I remember that there's a bunch like him, not a fiscally conservative bone in their bodies, but willing to meddle in someone else's life because he feels that "moar jesus" will fix everything. And I say that as a practicing Christian, I'm sick of the holier than thou crap from both parties. Enough already.

Fix the budget. Fix the idea that top-down-jesus-everywhere nanny state isn't going to fix things anymore than top-down-marxism-everywhere nanny state has.

How about the idea that I'm an adult, capable of taking care of myself, thankyouverymuch, perfectly happy with my petty sins and peccadilloes, and I'd appreciate it if you'd simply just stop enabling screwups, both personal and corporate?

I've seen it before - my fellow Republicans get a majority, and right after spending a bunch of money on other crap we don't need, they decide to get all sanctimonious. I don't care if its the left's version of intolerant morality or the Right's - I don't want it.

You can ignore that portion of the electorate at your peril, and say Hi to another 4 years of Harry Reid and President Cankles.

If you consider that he was my representative, I'm well aware of the man's voting record. Todd Akin was one of the few extremely consistent Tea Party voters we had in the House of Representatives. Todd Akin voted more consistently with the Tea Party than Michelle Bachman, for instance.

You lost half your audience right there Mr. Ghomert. It may or may not be be true depending on the person but what is your point? That non-Christians are not forgiving? And claiming to "stand up for principles" is also a dangerously encoded phrase. Which principles are you referring to . . the Christian ones or the libertarian ones? Once you are in power, do you intend to assert Christian principles in legislation? Which ones?

No, he didn't. I'm not a Christian, but I could understand the man's value system via the rest of his statements.

Gohmert's point was that Christians forgive people their former trespasses. He's saying "it's okay if you weren't very conservative yesterday, because what matters is how we approach it tomorrow."

You've completely ignored the context of his message so you could rush down to the comments to make your point.

You've got some good views, but you need to let others express their own views before rushing to lecture them.

Given that the religion of the left is their ideology. Whatever flavor that comes in, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, et al. And given that the God of the left IS the Federal Government, I'll take my religion of Christianity to win out over theirs, any day.

Moving away from God as a major part of the Republican party, makes the Republican party into the DimocRat party. Where the mere mention of God in their national convention garnered loud, widespread boo's.

If you're wanting a "different voice" in the GOP, one without God as part of it, there's the door. The DimocRat party awaits your servitude.

Libertarians aren't generally terrified of anything except perhaps complete loss of freedom. It's the independents and moderate leftists that you need to be worried about sir. They don't "invent" theocratic notions - but they do extrapolate from what they hear in the GOP platform and just don't want to take a chance.

I am not a troll dude. And I certainly don't give a hoot if you mention God to your heart's content My point is that people fear religion-based control by others - as they should. This is why we have separation of church and state. What is so hard to understand about that?

First, there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. It only provides that the state cannot establish an official state religion, and that the state cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Second, you're right in that people "fear religion-based control by others". I fear the left's religion of global warming, by which they are trying to control nearly every aspect of our lives.

Christians do not attempt to impose their religious beliefs on you or anyone else. People like you have been beating Christians over the head for decades claiming they are doing that very thing, when they aren't. You mistake them imposing their beliefs on you, with them exercising their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion. Just because you happen to witness someone praying or talking about their religion, by no means equates to them forcing that on you.

But leftists however, routinely succeed in imposing their religious beliefs on everyone, including you. And they insist on taking your tax dollars to pay for it all. I think if you're upset about any kind of religious imposition, you should rethink who you're directing your efforts towards.